The backers of a proposed amendment to the state constitution, Issue 1 2024, announced plans on Friday to file suit with the Ohio Supreme Court over the language that voters will see on their paper ballots. The language was written by Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose and approved Friday by the Republican-controlled Ohio Ballot Board in a partly-line vote.

“I’ve never seen ballot language this dishonest and so blatantly illegal,” said attorney Don McTigue in a statement from Citizens Not Politicians (CNP), the coalition that wrote the proposed amendment and got it on the ballot. “It’s insulting to voters, and I’m embarrassed for the Secretary of State.”  

The amendment is intended to end gerrymandering, the practice of drawing political district boundaries in ways that benefit one party over another. Both parties have used gerrymandering to their own advantage at different times and in different states. In Ohio today, it’s Republicans who benefit.

Getting a proposed amendment on the ballot is a long process. On Friday, CNP’s amendment reached the last step, a hearing before the Ohio Ballot Board. The board’s role includes reviewing the ballot language — the summary of the amendment that will be printed on the paper ballots for voters to read — to ensure that it fairly and accurately reflects the amendment’s effect.

The Ballot Board is made up of three Republicans (including LaRose, who chairs it) and two Democrats. At Friday’s hearing, the Democratic members suggested adopting ballot language proposed by CNP (read it here). But the Republicans voted that down and instead adopted a much longer summary prepared by LaRose’s staff.

CNP said that summary is rife with misleading descriptions. For example, the first paragraph reads: “Repeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering approved by nearly three-quarters of Ohio electors participating in the statewide elections of 2015 and 2018, and eliminate the longstanding ability of Ohio citizens to hold their representatives accountable for establishing fair state legislative and congressional districts.”

Ohio voters did pass measures to combat gerrymandering, but as Ohio Capital Journal explained, the Ohio Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the results:

“The current Ohio Redistricting Commission made up of politicians produced six different Statehouse maps and two congressional maps over the two years it did its work. Five of the Statehouse maps were ruled unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court and neither of the congressional maps passed constitutional muster …”

CNP provided other examples of misleading language.

‘Grotesque abuse of power’

“It’s one grotesque abuse of power after another from politicians desperate to protect the current system that only benefits themselves and their lobbyist friends,” said retired Republican Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, who helped draft Issue 1 and the proposed ballot language, in a statement from CNP.

“This is just another example of why we need to get politicians out of redistricting,” said Jen Miller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio.

“This decision is the latest in a long line of attempts to mislead voters and impede fair representation for Ohioans,” said the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute. According to the Brennan Center, more than three-quarters of Ohio residents live in non-competitive House of Representatives districts — meaning that the same party always wins.

LaRose spokesperson Dan Lusheck defended the summary in the Columbus Dispatch.

“We invited input from both sides of the issue, and we relied on language from the petition and the amendment itself,” Luscheck said. “The final draft summary gives Ohioans a fair and factual understanding of the proposed amendment.”

CNP said it will seek an expedited ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court. County boards of elections need to start printing ballots soon.

In 2023, LaRose made significant and controversial changes to the summary of that year’s Issue 1, the constitutional amendment that ensured reproductive rights, including access to abortion. LaRose is a vocal opponent of abortion rights. The board voted along party lines to adopt LaRose’s edits last year. The amendment passed anyway.

🗳️For more on this year’s November election, visit our Election Signals 2024 page.